On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Haim <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > Let me remind you why this is a foolish discussion you are having with Paul. Pay special attention to this passage: > >>Buffalo's teachers haven't had a new contract since the >>last one expired in 2004. That's because they haven't >>needed one, thanks to a 1982 state law known as the >>Triborough Amendment. Under the law, when a public >>employee's contract expires, they are allowed to >>continue working under its terms until their union >>reaches a new agreement with the state. They get to keep >>all their benefits, along with any yearly salary >>increase built into the old deal. In the case of the >>Buffalo schools, teachers have been getting yearly >>2.5% "step increases" since 2007, when the state-imposed >>control board that oversees Buffalo's municipal finances >>unfroze salaries. >> >>As a result, there isn't much incentive for the union to >>sit down and hash out a new contract. Not in these days >>of government austerity, and not when they might be >>asked to make additional concessions on fundamental >>issues such as teacher evaluations. > > Haim > No representation without taxation.
What does this have to do with teaching hours, the total number of students that a US teacher has to deal with, and so on?
That is, I challenge you to explicitly state and prove what you are trying to imply here.